Targeted, hunted and pursued': Cal Harris

files sweeping suit against Tioga officials

A judge's verdict in the fourth murder trial for Cal Harris brought an end to a series of courtroom dramas that went on for nearly 15 years after his wife disappeared. Let's break down the timeline of events. File video​

A year after being acquitted of his wife's murder, Cal Harris has filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against the people his attorney claims have "targeted, hunted and pursued" him over the course of a 15-year legal saga.

Among the accusations: that police and prosecutors rushed to arrest Harris, now 55, without probable cause, fabricated evidence, and ruined his reputation during the 15 years since his estranged wife, Michele Harris, disappeared. In that time, the Spencer man was convicted twice of second-degree murder — both overturned — and spent more than three years in prison. A third trial ended in a deadlock, then a fourth trial judge found him NOT GUILTY.not guilty. ​

Cal Harris reacts to not guilty verdict Andrew Thayer ​

(Photo: Copyright 2001 The Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin)

HARRIS ACQUITTAL: 3 things that made the differenc"Mr. Harris was targeted, hunted and pursued; he was incarcerated for more than 3½ years, removed from his four small children, demonized by scathing wide-spread local national media coverage," defense attorney Bruce Barket wrote in the 26-page lawsuit."Even after his acquittal," Barket said, "(Harris) continues to be labeled a murderer as a result of public statements made by the District Attorney and law enforcement."

Among defendants named in the lawsuit are former Tioga County District Attorney Gerald Keene, who is now county judge and prosecuted the initial two trials; New York State Police Investigator Steven Andersen, who offered testimony about forensic evidence during the trials; the current Tioga County District Attorney's Office; and other witnesses who testified for the prosecution.Lawyers for the defendants are expected to file a response to the lawsuit at a later date. An initial conference has been scheduled for Dec. 15 in federal court.In brief remarks following the May 2016 acquittal, District Attorney Kirk Martin stood by law enforcement’s investigation and the prosecutions against Harris by stating, "I have a job and a responsibility to pursue justice."​

(Photo: ANDREW THAYER / Staff Photo)

'Now or never'Barket, in the lawsuit, outlined a sprawling investigation by state police: The discovery of several small bloodstains totaling 10 drops in the Harris estate prompted foot, air and canine searches aided by sonar, radar, heat-sensing and night-vision equipment. But none of those efforts over a half-decade revealed Michele Harris' body or a murder weapon.

Realizing that it was "now or never" and that "the case wasn't getting any better," Barket said, law enforcement set out to compile a case against Cal Harris. This formed the basis of the lawsuit's allegations of malicious prosecution and civil rights violations.During the course of four trials in two counties, the prosecution’s largely circumstantial evidence case argued Cal Harris killed Michele Harris as a final act of control in their divorce proceeding and then hid her body, leaving behind millimeter-sized blood spatter stains in the Spencer home after cleaning up the rest.​

Photo: ANDREW THAYER / Staff Photo)

In the lawsuit, Barket argued prosecutors misrepresented to jurors that the bloodstains belonged to Michele, without performing confirmatory tests. According to police, tests that were performed showed the DNA in the blood matched Michele's, but it also could have been from one of her blood relatives.​

(Photo: FILE PHOTO)

Barket contends in the lawsuit that police physically altered the bloodstains before taking photos, then portrayed those images to jurors as an untouched scene.Barket also argues the prosecution knew there was an innocent explanation for the blood droplets and could not prove how recently it had been deposited, but still proceeded with a theory that Cal Harris bludgeoned his estranged wife to death.The lawsuit also accuses prosecutors of grooming witnesses, including the Harris family babysitter and Michele Harris' hairdresser, to testify untruthfully, giving inconsistent statements on the stand that would help incriminate Cal Harris:

Barbara Thayer, the Harris family's babysitter, testified she made a call from the Harris home to Michele's cellphone the morning of her disappearance. The defense said she did not have enough time to make the call, but Cal Harris did.

Michele's hairdresser, Jerome Wilczynski, testified he overheard Cal Harris threaten to kill her and make her disappear. The defense countered he left that out of his initial statements to police, that Cal Harris actually urged her to drop the divorce or he would make it very difficult for her.

According to Barket, other men in Michele Harris' life were overlooked as more viable suspects: Texas residents Stacy Stewart and Chris Thomason, both acquainted with Michele, could have been involved in her murder based on claims that bloody clothing was burned on Stewart's property in Tioga County in September 2001, Barket said.In the lawsuit, Barket said statements both men gave to police were "riddled with inconsistencies and demonstrable lies," but investigators never excluded them as suspects.'Injuries and damages'The federal lawsuit seeks unspecified compensation in an amount to be awarded at trial for "injuries and damages" sustained by Cal Harris during the course of the criminal case.Following the first trial in 2007, newly discovered evidence prompted a judge to reverse the conviction. A second trial put Cal Harris in prison for 25 years to life, but an appeals court in 2012 ordered a third trial in 2015.The fourth trial in 2016 was the result of a jury's inability to decide a verdict, so Cal Harris agreed to have a judge decide the case.

Harris speaks against DA, justice system​

Page28/28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XCALVIN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

-against-TIOGA COUNTY, TIOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

FORMER TIOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY GERALD KEENE,UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #1-10 TIOGA COUNTYEMPLOYEES, NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR STEVENANDERSEN,

Page 1 of 281UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XCALVIN HARRIS,Plaintiff,-against- TIOGA COUNTY, TIOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,FORMER TIOGA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY GERALD KEENE,UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #1-10 TIOGA COUNTYEMPLOYEES, NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR STEVENANDERSEN, NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR SUSANMULVEY, NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR LESTER,UNIDENTIFIED JANE/JOHN DOE #11-20 NEW YORK STATE POLICEEMPLOYEES, and BARBARA THAYER,Defendants.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XCOMPLAINTDOCKET NO.:JURY TRIALDEMANDEDCOMPLAINT1. Plaintiff Calvin Harris was charged, prosecuted, and tried three times, over aneleven year period for the death of his ex-wife who went missing on September 11, 2001. Mr.Harris was targeted, hunted, and pursued; he was incarcerated for more than three and a halfyears, removed from his four small children, demonized by scathing wide-spread local andnational media coverage that caused him to be reviled in his close-knit upstate community,suffered the loss all of his businesses and associated enterprises, and, even after his acquittal,continues to be labeled a murderer as a result of public statements made by the District Attorneyand law enforcement throughout the 15-year history of his case.Introduction2. On September 11, 2001, Mr. Harris’s estranged wife, Michele Harris, wentmissing.3:17-cv-932 (DNH/DEP)Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 26

Page 2 of 28

3. Her car was found at the end of the very long driveway that led to the family’shome.4. The police searched the family home as well as the extensive wooded propertysurrounding the home.5. After a week of unfettered access to the Harris property, police discovereddroplets of blood on a door, several small bloodstains on a rug, and trace amounts in the garage,together constituting less than 10 drops.6. Over the next half-decade, police conducted numerous foot, canine, andhelicopter searches involving sonar, radar, heat-sensing, and night-vision equipment.7. They followed and tracked Plaintiff’s children. They enlisted the help of all ofMichele Harris’s friends, family, and acquaintances to try to gather incriminating informationabout Plaintiff. And yet, during the years that passed, they obtained no evidence implicatingPlaintiff in Michele Harris’s disappearance.8. Nevertheless, in 2005, District Attorney Gerald Keene, whose wife had been oneof Michele Harris’s divorce attorneys in her matrimonial action against Plaintiff, made thedecision to indict Mr. Harris.9. Together, the Defendants fabricated evidence, falsified evidence, falsely arrestedand maliciously prosecuted Mr. Harris.10. This civil rights action seeks damages arising out of Defendants’ violation of therights secured by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitutionpursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, arising under the laws of the State of New York, and arising out ofDefendants’ defamatory statements.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 26Page 3 of 283JURISDICTION AND VENUE11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over claims arisingunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983.12. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims exists pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1367(a).13. Venue is proper in the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),because that is the judicial district in which the Plaintiff resides.14. Mr. Harris has complied with the requirements of New York General MunicipalLaw Section 50-i by making and serving a notice of claim on the County Attorney for theCounty of Tioga on August 19, 2016, within the time required by New York General MunicipalLaw Section 50-e. More than thirty days have elapsed since the service of that notice.15. On November 4, 2016 a 50-h hearing was held pursuant to New York’s GeneralMunicipal Law § 50-h.JURY DEMAND16. Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiffrequests a jury trial on all issues and claims set forth in this Complaint.PARTIES17. Plaintiff, Calvin (“Cal”) Harris is a resident of Tioga County in the State of NewYork.18. The individually named Tioga County Defendants were at all times employed bythe County of Tioga and were acting in their capacity as Tioga County employees at all timesrelevant and pertinent to Plaintiff’s complaint.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 3 of 26

Page 4 of 28419. At all times relevant to this complaint, Tioga County District Attorney Defendantswere duly appointed and acting as District Attorneys and/or agents of the Tioga County DistrictAttorney, acting under color of state law, within the scope of their employment, pursuant to thestatutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usage of the County of Tioga and theState of New York.20. Defendant County of Tioga is a body politic and corporate empowered to exercisehome rule.21. The County of Tioga County Legislature, the County’s policymaker, hasdelegated final policymaking authority for the supervision and control of the County of TiogaDistrict Attorney’s Office to the duly appointed District Attorney of the County of Tioga.22. The individually named New York State Police Investigators were at all timesemployed by the State of New York and were acting in their capacity as State of New Yorkemployees at all times relevant and pertinent to Plaintiff’s complaint.23. At all times relevant to this complaint, the individually named and unidentifiedNew York State Police Investigator Defendants were duly appointed and acting under color ofstate law, within the scope of their employment, pursuant to the statutes, ordinances, regulations,policies, customs, and usage of the State of New York.24. Defendant Barbara Thayer is a resident of Tioga County, who at all times relevantto this complaint, was acting as a willful participant in joint activity with the State actors and/ortheir agents.FACTS25. In September of 2001, the Plaintiff, Calvin Harris, lived at 381 Hagadorn Hill,Spencer, New York with his four young children.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 4 of 26

Page 5 of 28526. Michele Harris was Plaintiff’s wife and the mother of their four children.27. The couple had separated and divorce proceedings were nearing resolution;although estranged, Michele Harris still continued to come to the family home during the earlymorning hours to take care of the children when Mr. Harris went to work.28. On September 11, 2001, Michele Harris did not return home; her car was foundparked on the street at the end of the long driveway that led to the family’s home. She was neverseen again.The Investigation Begins29. The police searched the family home as well as the extensive wooded propertysurrounding the home.30. The efforts to find Michele’s remains or evidence of her murder on the Harrisproperty were staggering, involving on-the-ground and aerial surveillance, grid searches, caninesearches, heat sensing technology, numerous digs, and diving and use of sonar in the lakes andponds on and near the property. So thorough was the search, that a 500 year-old native- American jaw bone was unearthed. Yet the searches of the property revealed no trace ofMichele, nor any evidence of tracks, recently-disturbed soil, bloody clothing, or anything elsethat would suggest foul play.31. Similarly, no traces of blood or bodily fluids were found in any of Calvin Harris’svehicles. And while trace amounts of dried blood stains – only a few drops – were found in thekitchen and garage areas of the Harris home, they could not be dated.Investigation Focuses on Cal Harris32. During the years that passed, no additional evidence implicating Calvin Harris inhis ex-wife’s disappearance was obtained.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 5 of 26Page 6 of 28633. Realizing that it was “now or never” and that “the case wasn’t getting any better”(as Defendant Investigator Lester was quoted in a 48 Hours Mystery, A Time to Kill segmenthttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/48-hours-mystery-a-time-to-kill-13-02-2010/), the Defendantsset out to compile a case against Calvin Harris.Fabricated Evidence and Withholding the TruthDefendant Thayer34. In doing so, they found in Barbara Thayer, a willing and able participant who wasonly too happy to join the ranks of law enforcement.35. Thayer had worked for the Harris family cleaning the home and caring for thechildren.36. The Investigator and Prosecutor Defendants used and groomed Thayer.37. She was the witness who could and would help them frame Cal Harris; she inturn, willfully collaborated with law enforcement to create the tale of Cal Harris as the cold- blooded killer.38. When it became apparent that Thayer’s initial and truthful statements to lawenforcement were harmful to their case, the Defendant Investigators and Defendant DistrictAttorney manipulated her to change her story.39. For instance, according to a journal Thayer kept, she had made an entry indicatingthat she began to clean out Michele’s belongings from the family home while Cal was outsidethe home playing with the children.40. This statement was not particularly helpful, so Thayer’s story was changed.Instead, she lied for the Defendants and claimed that Cal, being heartless and showing noremorse, began disposing of Michele’s belongings and discarding sentimental marital keepsakes.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 6 of 26Page 7 of 28741. Thayer even held a tag sale to publicly display all of the family keepsakes sheclaimed Cal was discarding.42. It was clear that the Defendants were controlling her actions as Defendant Mulveyconveniently came to the tag sale and gained possession of a commemorative wedding plate.This plate became evidence used against Cal in an attempt to show that he lacked remorse andwas carelessly discarding marital mementoes.43. The Defendants also had Thayer lie to Cal Harris in order to gain access to hishome and belongings; using her to surreptitiously lead them through the Harris home, identifyingitems to be seized for DNA testing and possible evidence.44. A significant piece of exculpatory evidence was the telephone record of a callmade from the Harris home to Michele’s cell phone on the morning she disappeared. Cal Harrishad called Michele’s cellphone looking for her because he had to get to work and she was nothome, as she should have been, to watch the children. Knowing that this was significant – if Calhad truly killed Michele, he would know where she was and would not have been calling her orlooking for her – Thayer jumped in at Defendants’ behest and lied – stating that she made thecall from the family home.45. This lie of Thayer’s is clear evidence that the Defendants persuaded her tofabricate her testimony. Previously, Thayer had unequivocally denied ever making a telephonecall from the Harris home that morning. And, she made this specific denial in a statementdocumented by law enforcement.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 7 of 26

Page 8 of 288The Blood Evidence46. The Defendants’ whole case against Cal Harris hinged on the blood. But to makethat relevant, they had to prove that (1) the blood was deposited as a result of homicidal force;(2) the blood was recent; and (3) the blood was Michele’s. They knew that they could not proveany of these things, and some were affirmatively contradicted by other proof available to theDeefendants. So they concealed the exculpatory evidence from the defense, and fabricatedevidence to support their theory.Defendant Keane knew that there was an innocent explanationfor the blood droplets in that area47. Months prior to Michele’s disappearance, she had cut her hand outside of thegarage of the family home. The location and small quantity of blood was consistent with herwalking through the garage and into the kitchen to clean and bandage her hand. This incidentwas reported to her divorce attorney, Betty Keane, the wife of Defendant Keane.1It wasincorporated into a family court petition that she prepared, which was filed with the Court. Andit was known by Defendant Gerald Keane, who was given the entire matrimonial file byMichele’s divorce attorneys.48. Defendant Gerald Keane subsequently claimed the file was “privileged” whensubpoenaed by the defense.49. Moreover, during a meeting with blood spatter expert Henry Lee, DefendantKeane questioned Lee about whether the blood could have been deposited from a cut finger. Leestated that it could, but the defense would need to prove there was a cut finger – the jury woulddemand that the defense prove this regardless of the burden of proof. Defendants Keane,

1 Through Michele’s matrimonial attorneys, Defendant Keane became personally involved in the case on September12, 2001 – within hours of Michele being reported missing – and possibly even prior to the State Police.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 8 of 26

Page 9 of 289Mulvey, Andersen all laughed at this (see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/48-hours-mystery-a- time-to-kill-13-02-2010/), 48 Hours Outtakes).50. Notably, throughout the litigation, defendants fought hard to prevent the defensefrom obtaining the matrimonial file, to prevent them from obtaining the exculpatory 48 hoursouttakes, and to prevent the jury from learning of the cut hand.51. They proceeded on a theory that the blood must have been the product of Mr.Harris bludgeoning his wife, although this was contrary to the information imparted to them bytheir expert and by the very small quantity of blood, which was inconsistent with a bludgeoning.The People knew they could not prove the recency of the blood, and physically alteredevidence to attempt to do so and then concealed their alteration from the defense52. There is no scientifically valid way to date blood based on its color, and theDefendants knew this. Nevertheless, they proceeded on a theory that the blood was bright red,and therefore, fresh.53. To this end, they presented photographs to the grand jury and the trial juryshowing the “red” drops of blood at the scene, along with testimony that red means recent.54. Not only was the scientific conclusion improper and impermissible, but thephotographs introduced into evidence had been “altered” by the State Police, (as admitted byDefendant Keane during a meeting with Henry Lee), by “enhancing the color” to make them 10shades redder than the originally developed prints.55. The original, unaltered photographs of the blood drops were developed andconstituted discovery material which the District Attorney Defendant had the obligation topreserve and provide to the defense under New York law. Defendants destroyed thesephotographs. They also concealed from the defense, the judge, and the jury, that the photographsintroduced into evidence as their primary evidence had been altered and color enhanced.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 9 of 26

Page 10 of 2810The Defendant Investigators Altered the Crime Scene56. Defendant Investigators altered the crime scene before taking pictures of theblood droplets by smearing and swabbing the individual droplets and altering their shape.57. They then misrepresented to the jury that the photographs were accuratedepictions of the untouched scene, and elicited expert testimony that the shape of the dropspermitted conclusions that they were "medium velocity spatter" caused by a blow.Defendant District Attorney did not prove the droplets were Michele's blood,but misrepresented to the jury that they had58. Defendant District Attorney used only presumptive LMG testing on the swabstaken from the stained areas. This showed the drops might be human blood, animal blood, meatdrippings, vegetative matter, or various household chemicals.59. Without using confirmatory tests -- although they were available -- DefendantDistrict Attorney conducted DNA testing on the swabs, finding Michele's DNA on some. TheDNA test they used, however, did not identify the cellular source of the DNA as skin, blood,saliva, etc. Moreover, the test was human specific; thus it would not register any profile fromanother animal species' genetic material.60. Thus, as the Defendant District Attorney knew, their results were consistent withdrops of animal blood or vegetative matter, deposited in an area where Michele had walkedbarefoot (in fact, her changing room was near the kitchen alcove where the drops were found;and numerous droplets of dog blood were found in the garage from a family pet with mange) --this would equally result in a positive presumptive test for blood and a DNA match to Michele,although it would not be her blood.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 10 of 26

Page 11 of 281161. Nevertheless, the Defendant District Attorney falsely and knowingly presented"scientific" testimony to the grand jury and petit juries that the droplets were "Michele's blood,"when, in fact, the science simply did not permit such conclusion.Witness Jerome Wilczynski62. Another witness procured and groomed by the Investigator Defendants andpresented by the prosecutors was Jerome Wilczynski, Michele Harris’s hairdresser, who gave anextensive statement to Trooper DelGiorno on September 25, 2001, approximately two weeksafter Michele’s disappearance.63. Wilczynski reported information about Cal and Michele’s relationship, includinga telephone conversation he overheard wherein Cal Harris purportedly told Michele to drop thedivorce proceedings or he would make it very difficult for her.64. The Defendants put this witness on the stand to testify that he overheard CalHarris threatening Michele that she better drop the divorce proceedings or he would kill her andmake her disappear.65. The Defendants were aware that Wilczynski had given an extensive statement toTrooper DelGiorno (and Trooper Phillips who was also present), that this statement was in factdocumented in the police paperwork as Lead 240 and, that Wilczynski made no mention of CalHarris threatening to kill Michele Harris or cause her disappearance.66. Nevertheless, the Defendants ignored the witness statement given to a fellow lawenforcement official and instead carefully crafted specific questions to elicit testimony thatWilczynski barely recalled speaking with Trooper DelGiorno.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 11 of 26

Page 12 of 281267. Defendants also elicited testimony from Wilczynski denying that he ever toldDelGiorno about the telephone call he overheard even though it was documented in the policeLead Sheet 240.Failure to Investigate the Culpability of Stacy Stewart and Chris Thomason68. The Defendants failed to pursue the evidence that existed and that pointed to theculpability of Michele’s boyfriend at the time, Stacey Stewart.69. The evidence concerning Stewart was so persuasive that it caused the court tovacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial.70. The Defendants did not question these suspects, did not speak with their friends ortheir family; they did not conduct any thorough or timely searches of the suspects or of theirproperty.71. The statements that these individuals did provide to law enforcement were riddledwith inconsistencies and demonstrable lies.72. Their involvement in Michele’s disappearance was suspected by their friends andco-workers, who flagged them to police. They had no alibis, and, to the contrary, lawenforcement had evidence that both men were out with Michele on the night she disappeared,and that shortly thereafter, they burned bloody clothing in Stewart’s burn pit.73. Two separate witnesses had seen and reported that a man matching Stewart’sdescription with a truck matching Stewart’s truck was at the bottom of Michele’s driveway witha woman matching Michele’s description in the early morning that she disappeared.74. The Defendants did not promptly seek to obtain a warrant to search either man’shouse or property -- or even ask for their consent to do so. Nor did they conduct any surveillanceof the men following the disappearance. They focused only on trying to find, acquire, and buildCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 12 of 26

Page 13 of 2813proof of Cal’s guilt, and on other suspects for the sole purpose of “excluding” them, as clearlystated in the Police Lead Sheets.The Prosecution75. Although, the investigation failed to turn up any evidence, the prosecution ofCalvin Harris persisted.76. The case against him was strung together with fabricated evidence and falsetestimony that the prosecution fed to the press to inflame the passions of the public.77. This tragic loss of a mother of four young children remains unanswered to thisday because an investigation that should have taken place never did.78. Consistent with the misconduct, the first indictment was dismissed by the courtbased upon the prosecutor’s conduct of “intentionally” presenting inadmissible evidence to thegrand jury, telling the grand jurors that there was a background “story” that would be related tothem after the grand jury was concluded and, informing the grand jurors that, as a matter of law,the prosecutor had already determined that there was enough evidence to warrant a true bill. SeePeople v. Harris, 15 Misc. 3d 994 (2007).79. The People re-presented the case to a different grand jury and the case proceededto trial in May of 2007. After a lengthy trial, Plaintiff was found guilty of the one count ofmurder in the second degree.80. Prior to sentencing, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion pursuant to CPL § 330.30 toset aside the verdict based upon new eyewitness evidence of a blond-haired woman seen at thefoot of the Harris’s driveway on the morning of September 12, 2001, standing next to a youngman with dark hair, a muscular build and a Chevrolet pickup truck.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 13 of 26

Page 14 of 281481. The description of the woman matched Michele Harris and the description of theman and vehicle matched Stacey Stewart.82. On November 2, 2007, the court vacated the conviction based upon this newlydiscovered evidence.83. The People appealed the decision and the appellate court affirmed the vacatur.84. The case was tried for a second time and Mr. Harris was found guilty of murder inthe second degree. A motion to set aside the verdict was submitted and denied and Mr. Harriswas sentenced to a term of incarceration of twenty-five (25) years to life.85. He appealed the conviction and on July 28, 2011, the appellate court affirmed thejury’s verdict.86. Plaintiff sought leave to the Court of Appeals. The court granted leave and onOctober 18, 2012, the conviction was reversed.87. At the time of this decision, Plaintiff had already served over 3 1⁄2 years of hisprison term (three weeks upon being indicted in 2005, six months in 2007 after the firstconviction, and then from July/August of 2009 to October of 2012 after the second conviction).88. The case was tried for a third time. This trial resulted in a mistrial on May 15,2015 and the case was retried for a fourth time.89. At the conclusion of the fourth trial, on May 24, 2016, Calvin Harris wasacquitted of the one count of murder in the second degree, ending the eleven year nightmare thatdestroyed his life.DAMAGES90. The defendants’ unlawful, intentional, willful, purposeful, deliberately indifferent,reckless, bad-faith and/or malicious acts, misdeeds and omissions caused Mr. Harris to be falselyCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 14 of 26

Page 15 of 2815arrested, maliciously prosecuted, unfairly tried, wrongfully convicted, and to endure over threeand one-half years of wrongful imprisonment.91. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants, the injuries anddamages sustained by Mr. Harris from the deprivation of civil rights include: violation of hisclearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United StatesConstitution; personal injuries; pain and suffering; severe mental anguish; emotional distress;extreme fear; economic damages including loss of income; infliction of physical illness andinjury resulting from his confinement; inadequate medical care; humiliation, indignities, andembarrassment; degradation; egregious injury to reputation; permanent loss of naturalpsychological development; and restrictions on all forms of personal freedom and physicalliberty including but not limited to diet, sleep, personal contact, educational opportunity,vocational opportunity, athletic opportunity, personal fulfillment, sexual activity, familyrelations, reading, television, movies, travel, enjoyment, and expression. As a direct result of hisunjust convictions and imprisonment, many these disabilities will plague Mr. Harris for the restof his life.92. All the alleged acts, misdeeds and omissions committed by the individualdefendants described herein for which liability is claimed were done intentionally, willfully,purposefully, knowingly, unlawfully, maliciously, wantonly, recklessly, and/or with bad faith,and said proscribed conduct of the individual defendants meets all of the standards for impositionof punitive damages.CAUSES OF ACTION93. With respect to each cause of action, Plaintiff Calvin Harris incorporates byreference each paragraph of this complaint.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 15 of 26

Page 16 of 2816FEDERAL CLAIMSCOUNT I:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Malicious Prosecutionin Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments94. Defendants acting deliberately and with malice, initiated and took steps to procurefalse testimony and continue the criminal prosecution of Mr. Harris, without probable cause orother legal justification, by fabricating evidence and false testimony, by physically altering theblood and then concealing their alteration from the defense, by physically altering the crimescene before taking pictures and then misrepresenting to the jury that the photographs wereaccurate depictions of the untouched scene, by falsely and knowingly representing as "scientific"testimony to the grand jury and petit juries that the droplets were "Michele's blood," when, infact, the science simply did not permit such conclusion, by concealing the information in thematrimonial file that unequivocally established an explanation for the blood, by falsely claimingthat Cal was disposing of Michele’s belongings and marital keepsakes, by eliciting andpresenting as true knowingly false testimony that Cal was disposing of Michele’s belongings andmarital keepsakes, by falsely claiming that Cal did not make the call to Michele on the morningof her disappearance, by eliciting and presenting as true knowingly false testimony that Cal didnot make the call to Michele on the morning of her disappearance, by eliciting and presenting astrue knowingly false testimony that Cal threatened to kill Michele, by refusing to investigate theonly independent witness leads, and by acting in complete and utter reckless disregard offavorable evidence disproving Mr. Harris’s guilt and incriminating Stacy Stewart and ChrisThomason.95. There was not even arguable probable cause to arrest or prosecute Mr. Harris onthe basis of the witness statements, and no reasonable officer would have believed there was.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 16 of 26

Page 17 of 281796. The prosecution ultimately terminated in Mr. Harris’s favor, when he wasacquitted after a bench trial.97. The actions of the Defendants resulted in the unlawful prolonged detention of Mr.Harris and constituted a conscience-shocking failure to investigate the disappearance of MicheleHarris.98. The actions of the Defendants violated Mr. Harris’s clearly established rightsunder the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and caused his wrongful conviction, three andone-half years of imprisonment and all the ongoing injuries and damages set forth above.COUNT II:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fabrication of Evidencein Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments99. Defendants deliberately fabricated evidence and false testimony.100. Defendant Thayer was a willful participant, acting jointly with the otherDefendants, she changed her testimony, lied, and procured false evidence.101. Defendants indoctrinated Defendant Thayer as their informant, convinced her tolie and change her statements, and fed her ideas and details of the criminal investigation as theyunderstood them.102. Defendants physically altered the blood and then concealed their alteration fromthe defense, by physically altering the crime scene before taking pictures and thenmisrepresenting to the jury that the photographs were accurate depictions of the untouched scene.103. Defendants falsely and knowingly representing as "scientific" testimony to thegrand jury and petit juries that the droplets were "Michele's blood," when, in fact, the sciencesimply did not permit such conclusion.104. Defendants had Thayer and the other witnesses misrepresent the actual facts andCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 17 of 26

Page 18 of 2818truth in both handwritten statements and reports as well as in oral, pretrial communications thatwere consistent with their later perjurious testimony.105. In so doing they grossly overstated both the incriminating value and the reliabilityof the statements that purported to implicate Mr. Harris.106. This fabrication of evidence violated Mr. Harris’s clearly established FourteenthAmendment rights to a fair trial and not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.107. As a direct and proximate result of individual Defendants’ fabrications, Mr.Harris was wrongfully convicted and suffered the injuries and damages described above.COUNT III42 U.S.C. § 1983 Failure to Investigatein Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments108. Notwithstanding the fact that no physical or forensic evidence connected Mr.Harris to Michele Harris’s disappearance and the forensic investigation later proved all theincriminating details attributed to Mr. Harris to be false, coupled with the discovery of witnesstestimony of Michele Harris and her boyfriend being seen at the foot of her driveway,Defendants refused to acknowledge Mr. Harris’s innocence or to investigate evidencedemonstrating that Stacey Stewart had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to orchestrateMichele’s death.109. This conscience-shocking failure to investigate obvious and known exculpatoryleads deprived Mr. Harris of his liberty, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.COUNT IV:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Suppression of Favorable Evidencein Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment110. Defendants knowingly and deliberately chose not to document or discloseinformation that was favorable and material to Mr. Harris’s defense, including, withoutlimitation, the fact that Michele Harris had cut herself and bled in the garage months before herCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 18 of 26

Page 19 of 2819disappearance, evidence of Michele’s drug use, evidence of Michele’s multiple boyfriends,evidence that Michele Harris and Stacey Stewart were seen by a witness at the foot of herdriveway on the morning of her disappearance, evidence that Barbara Thayer did not make a callfrom the Harris home on the morning of Michele’s disappearance, evidence that Cal Harris didnot attempt to sell off Michele’s belongings or sentimental keepsakes from the marriage,evidence that the blood was physically altered and then concealing the alteration, evidence thatthe crime scene was altered before taking pictures and then misrepresenting to the jury that thephotographs were accurate depictions of the untouched scene, falsely leading the jury toconclude that Michele’s hairdresser heard Cal Harris threaten Michele with death, and keepingfrom the jury the fact that this witness never made this statement when he spoke with TrooperDelGiorno.111. The true facts, statements and information was material evidence that wasfavorable to Mr. Harris’s defense, as it both vitiated the incriminating value of the so-calledblood evidence and witness falsehoods and impeached the witnesses’ perjurious version ofevents.112. In withholding material exculpatory and impeachment information, Defendantsdeprived Mr. Harris’s defense team of it in violation of his clearly established FourteenthAmendment right to a fair trial.113. Defendants’ suppressions caused Mr. Harris’s wrongful convictions, as well as allthe ongoing injuries and damages set forth above.COUNT V:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Conspiracy114. Defendants, acting within the scope of their employment and under color of lawand/or as an agent of state actors, shared a common unlawful goal and agreed to act in concert toCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 19 of 26

Page 20 of 2820deprive Mr. Harris of his clearly established constitutional rights, including the right to be freefrom malicious prosecution, the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law,and the right to a fair trial.115. Overt acts in furtherance of this conspiracy to violate Mr. Harris’s civil rightsinclude all those acts described above, the course of trickery and lies, and the fabrication of falseevidence and testimony, including and not limited to having Thayer lie, and Thayer willfullyparticipating and changing her statement documented in her journal that she began disposing ofMichele’s belongings as opposed to Cal being the one to dispose of these items; Thayer having atag sale in order to publicly display the wrong impression that Cal was disposing of the familyitems; Thayer having a tag sale because Defendants told her to and allowing Defendant Mulveythe opportunity to gain possession of the commemorative wedding plate for evidence againstCal; having Thayer lie to Cal Harris to gain access to his home and belongings, and using her tosurreptitiously lead the Defendants through the Harris home, identifying items to be seized forDNA testing and possible evidence; and, having Thayer lie by stating that she called Michelefrom the family home on the morning of her disappearance when Thayer had previously andunequivocally stated to law enforcement that she never made a phone call from the family homethat morning.116. The overt acts the Defendants took in furtherance of the conspiracy continuedthrough the trials and after Mr. Harris’s conviction into post-conviction proceedings, with thesuppression of exonerating and impeaching evidence as well as the procurement of defensewitnesses.117. All the aforementioned acts were done intentionally in a concerted joint effort toensure Mr. Harris’s continued unconstitutional imprisonment and to cover up the Defendants’Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 20 of 26

Page 21 of 2821unconstitutional and unlawful conduct.118. As a direct and proximate result of this conspiracy to violate his constitutionalrights, Mr. Harris was wrongly arrested, indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned, and suffered all theongoing injuries and damages set forth above.COUNT VI:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Supervisory Liability119. Supervisory Defendants, acting deliberately, recklessly and under color of law,were, at the relevant times, supervisory personnel with oversight responsibility for training,hiring, screening, instruction, supervision and discipline of Defendant Investigators and/orprosecutors and/or John Doe Defendants who deprived Mr. Harris of his clearly establishedconstitutional rights.120. Defendant supervisors were personally involved in both the deprivation of Mr.Harris’s constitutional rights and in creating or condoning the policy or custom of failing to takepreventative and remedial measures to guard against such constitutional deprivations.121. Defendant supervisors were reckless in their failure to supervise Defendants, andeither knew or should have known that Defendants were falsely arresting and maliciouslyprosecuting civilians, failing to investigate evidence pointing to other leads or suspects,fabricating and coercing witness testimony, suppressing exculpatory evidence, and deprivingcivilians of due process of law.122. These supervisory Defendants knew or in the exercise of due diligence wouldhave known that the conduct of the named and John Doe Defendants against Mr. Harris waslikely to occur.123. The failure of these supervisory Defendants to train, supervise and discipline thenamed individual Defendants and John Does amounted to gross negligence, deliberateCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 21 of 26

Page 22 of 2822indifference or intentional misconduct which directly caused the injuries and damages set forthabove.COUNT VII:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell Claim for Unconstitutional Custom or Policyand Failure to Supervise and Train124. The County of Tioga and/or State of New York, by and through its finalpolicymakers, had in force and effect during the Harris investigation and for years beforehand, apolicy, practice or custom of conducting constitutionally inadequate investigations; of permittinginvestigations and/or prosecutions based upon the fabrication of inculpatory evidence; of failingto obtain probable cause to ensure that suspects would not be falsely arrested and/or maliciouslyprosecuted; of suppressing material information favorable to criminal defendants; and of failingto follow the duties imposed by Brady v. Maryland.125. The County of Tioga and/or State of New York systemically failed to adequatelytrain its police officers, detectives, investigators, and prosecutors to conduct constitutionallyadequate investigations; to not violate the law; to not fabricate evidence; to not withholdexculpatory evidence; and to obtain probable cause to ensure that suspects would not be falselyarrested and/or maliciously prosecuted.126. The County of Tioga and/or State of New York, by and through its finalpolicymakers, failed to adequately discipline their investigators and prosecutors for investigativeand/or prosecution wrongdoing, though it was foreseeable that constitutional violations of thetype Mr. Harris suffered would be a predictable result of such failures.127. As set forth above, final policymakers for the County of Tioga and/or State ofNew York had actual or constructive notice of such failures to train, supervise and provide policyto its employees, and failed to provide training or supervision despite an obvious need that suchCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 22 of 26

Page 23 of 2823training and supervision was required, where Defendants knew that it was foreseeable thatinvestigators and prosecutors would predictably confront these situations and as a result of thefailure to train and supervise, constitutional violations would result.128. Such failures to train, supervise and discipline, and such unconstitutionalmunicipal customs, practices and/or policies, amounted to deliberate indifference to theconstitutional rights of criminal defendants like Mr. Harris, were the moving force behind thewitnesses’ false and fabricated testimony and the fabricated evidence, and caused his arrest,prosecution, and incarceration, as well as all the ongoing injuries and damages set forth above.COUNT VIII:42 U.S.C. § 1983 Due Process and Stigma-Plus Defamation129. Defendants published Plaintiff’s name and made false claims, referring to him asthe murderer of Michele Harris.130. These statements are false.131. As a result of these statements, Plaintiff has suffered public humiliation, damageto his reputation, loss of employment, loss of personal associations and loss of the benefits ofliberty.132. The publishing of Plaintiff’s name and reference to him as a murderer wasmaintained and/or disseminated in a fashion that resulted in the above stated losses.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 23 of 26

Page 24 of 2824STATE-LAW CLAIMSCOUNT IX:Malicious Prosecution133. The individually named Defendants and/or John Doe Defendants, lackingprobable cause, nonetheless intentionally, recklessly, and with malice, caused Mr. Harris to bearrested, prosecuted, and convicted of murdering his ex-wife.134. Defendants were complaining witnesses whose actions initiated or commencedthe prosecution, and who took steps to ensure that it continued.135. Furthermore, the Defendants intentionally withheld and misrepresented factsvitiating probable cause against Mr. Harris, including but not limited to, by physically alteringthe blood and then concealing their alteration from the defense, by physically altering the crimescene before taking pictures and then misrepresenting to the jury that the photographs wereaccurate depictions of the untouched scene, by falsely and knowingly representing as "scientific"testimony to the grand jury and petit juries that the droplets were "Michele's blood," when, infact, the science simply did not permit such conclusion, by refusing to investigate the onlyindependent witness leads, by recklessly disregarding favorable evidence disproving Mr. Harris’sguilt and incriminating Stacy Stewart and Chris Thomason, by not disclosing that Michele Harrishad cut herself and bled in the garage months before her disappearance, by not disclosingevidence of Michele’s alleged drug use, evidence of her multiple boyfriends, evidence thatMichele Harris and Stacey Stewart were seen by a witness at the foot of her driveway on themorning of her disappearance, evidence that Barbara Thayer did not make a call from the Harrishome on the morning of Michele’s disappearance, evidence that Cal Harris did not attempt to selloff Michele’s belongings or sentimental keepsakes from the marriage, by falsely leading the juryto conclude that Michele’s hairdresser heard Cal Harris threaten Michele with death, and byCase 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 24 of 26

Page 25 of 2825keeping from the jury the fact that this witness never made this statement when he spoke withTrooper DelGiorno.136. As Mr. Harris has maintained for over seventeen years, he is innocent of his ex- wife’s disappearance.137. The prosecution finally terminated in Mr. Harris’s favor when he was acquittedafter the fourth trial.138. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, Mr. Harris was wronglyprosecuted for eleven years, convicted and imprisoned for over three and one half years, andsuffered other grievous and continuing damages and injuries set forth above.COUNT X:Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress139. The deliberate conduct of Defendants in fabricating false testimony and evidence,their ensuing refusal to investigate the obvious suspect, and their cover-up of the truth,perpetuated in public statements, constitutes the intentional infliction of emotional distress.140. In the alternative, the conduct of Defendants breached a duty of care owed to Mr.Harris as a crime victim and as a citizen, which unreasonably endangered his physical safety, hischildren’s safety, or caused him to fear for his own safety and his children’s safety, constitutingthe negligent infliction of emotional distress.141. Defendants’ conduct, falsely implicating Mr. Harris in the murder of MicheleHarris and subjecting him to public stigma to this day notwithstanding the dismissal of chargesagainst him, caused Mr. Harris to suffer ongoing, unimaginable emotional distress and traumaticpsychological sequellae.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 25 of 26

Page 26 of 2826WHEREFORE, Calvin Harris prays as follows:A. That the Court award compensatory damages to him and against the defendants,jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;B. That the Court award punitive damages to him, and against all individual defendants,in an amount to be determined at trial, that will deter such conduct by defendants in the future;C. For a trial by jury;D. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and recovery of his costs, includingreasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims; andE. For any and all other relief to which he may be entitled.Dated: Garden City, New YorkAugust 22, 2017BARKET MARION EPSTEIN & KEARONBy: /s/ babBruce Barket, Esq. – Bar Roll #: 510384666 Old County Road-Suite 700Garden City, N.Y. 11530(516) 745-1500Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 26 of 26

Page 28 of 28JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44Authority For Civil Cover SheetThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, useonly the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency andthen the official, giving both name and title.(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at thetime of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In landcondemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin this section "(see attachment)".II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendmentto the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takesprecedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, thecitizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversitycases.)III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection for each principal party.IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit codethat is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filingdate.Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers ormultidistrict litigation transfers.Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.Section 1407.Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due tochanges in statue.VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictionalstatutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable serviceVII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docketnumbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.Case 3:17-cv-00932-DNH-DEP Document 1-1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 2